Expanding Travel Horizons

John Siraut & Nathalie Gay

Colin Buchanan

Abstract: Low travel horizons can be a major barrier for socially excluded groups to fully
participate in the economic, social and cultural life of modern society. This in turn can lead to
socially deprived ghettos even in our most prosperous and dynamic cities. This paper examined
the factors behind low travel horizons including how mental geographies are influenced by access
to different transport modes. Drawing upon original primary research in inner London the paper
presents a wide range of recommendations as to how travel horizons can be broadened.

The ability and willingness to travel is key to fully participating in the economic, social
and cultural life of modern society (Shove 2002). Society has become more travel
intensive as individuals either desire or are required to take on a greater number of
roles and services are centralised. For example, a parent may want to take children
to school, go to work, go shopping, keep a hospital appointment, visit an elderly
relative, collect children and have an evening out with friends in a single day. It is
increasingly unlikely that all these activities can be carried out in the same locality.
This has led to the concept of time poverty (Turner & Grieco 2000), that is, people
are not able to do everything that they need to do within the time available to them.

While society has become more travel intensive the average amount of time people
are prepared to spend travelling, (their time budget) remains at around one hour per
day. Research shows that this figure is constant around the world in different
societies and over time (Schafer 2000). Averages, of course, cover a wide range of
actual experiences but the concept of a travel time budget is an important one.

So as we are required or desire to travel more but are not prepared to spend any more time
travelling then we must travel faster and/or more efficiently (for example, more linked trips). The
National Travel Survey (2005) clearly shows this process over the last 30 years, as people at a
national level have switched from walking, cycling and bus use to car and a lesser extent rail
travel. People with low travel horizons are defined by the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU 2003) as
individuals unwilling to travel long journey times or distances, or who may lack trust in, or
familiarity with transport services. Travel horizons, therefore, covers two issues. The first relates to
an inability or unwillingness to access a transport system. The second relates to having accessed
the transport system, an inability or unwillingness to use it to its full potential. Individuals who are
unable or unwilling to switch to faster modes of transport will thus experience lower level of
opportunities in relation to training, work and services than society as a whole.

Travel is related to access to a transport system and Cass et al (2005) identified four
key dimensions of ‘access’ – financial, physical, organisational and temporal. Each
impacts on individuals’ travel horizons depending on their particular circumstances.
Transport has a cost and as a result those in the highest income quintile travel
nearly three times the distance as those in the lowest quintile (National Travel
Survey 2005). This is due to the modes of transport used. The highest quintile make
nearly three times as many car trips and four times as many rail trips but only half
the number of walking trips and a third of bus trips compared to the lowest quintile
income group. A key journey purpose where distance travelled between high and
low-income varies markedly is journey to work (London Area Transportation Survey
2005) where the former travel twice as far as the latter meaning the number of jobs
available to them is far greater.

Physical access relates both to the ability to get to and enter a particular mode of
transport. In the London context, access to the system is not an issue for the
majority of able bodied people as 91% of Londoners live within six minutes of a bus
stop (National Travel Survey 2005). Whilst London’s bus fleet is entirely low-floor,
the mobility impaired are often unable to use the rail network due to the need to
negotiate steps or escalators.

The organisation of public transport services relates to where services go to,

interchange facilities, information provision and ticketing structures. In London
integrated ticketing and comprehensive coverage of the city reduces the impact of
some of these factors.

Finally temporal refers to services running when people need or wish to travel. Again
in London this is less of a problem with the vast majority of bus stops being served
by high-frequency services that operate at least 18 and increasingly 24 hours a day.

There are also a range of non transport related barriers that impact on travel
horizons. In his article on public transport and social exclusion, Church et al (2000)
defined barriers relating to the design and safety of the street environment as ‘space
exclusion’. The environment in which public transport is located therefore needs to
be taken into account while analysing barriers to travel.

Fear of crime or anti-social behaviour is a barrier to travel, particularly for women

and the elderly. The SEU found that 44% of women and nearly a fifth of men feel
unsafe waiting at the bus stop after dark. Fear of racism deters some ethnic
minorities from travelling, usually making them stay within their local communities.
This reluctance to travel may be compounded by language issues. It is estimated
that 42% of people and 30% of school children living in London do not have English
as their first language (London Skills Commission 2002). In certain cases, culture
or religion may also act as a barrier to travel. This may relate to women not able or
wishing to travel in the company of men, attitudes of other passengers when
travelling in religious or cultural dress and religious divides in some communities that
make travel in another area virtually impossible.

Having children or having to look after a family member can also reduce the
possibility of travelling long distances due to time restrictions. For example, lone
parents or parents with large families cannot travel far to work if they have to pick up
their children after school. They also require reliability, that is, they must be able to
guarantee that they can pick up children at a set time. Irrespective of income,
average distance travelled falls as household size rises (London Area Transportation
Survey 2005).
 The literature and existing data suggests that travel horizons are driven by a wide
range of factors, including income, perceptions of crime, family circumstance,
personal mobility or disability. Low travel horizons are likely to be both an indication
of social exclusion and a reason for it.

Research methodology

Given the limited literature on travel horizons the research aimed to explore the
extent and reason behind low travel horizons in inner-London. An area which is
perceived as being well served by public transport but suffers from high levels of
social deprivation. The research took the form of a mixture of focus groups and face
to face interviews with 61 people from a wide range of backgrounds. There was a
broadly even mix of men and women interviewed from different ethnicities and age
groups. Only a quarter of participants were in employment as the study deliberately
targeted socially excluded groups. A third of the participants where aged 14-25
(including two school based focus groups), slightly under a fifth were over 55, and
four of the people interviewed were registered disabled. All participants received a
small payment for taking part. Individuals were recruited via Job-Centre Plus,
community groups, on-street and via schools around Camberwell, Peckham, Brixton,
Camden Town and Covent Garden.

Table.1: Participants matrix

T per
o cen
t tag
al e
Male 2 46
8 %
Female 3 54
3 %
White 3 52
2 %
Non 2 48
White 9 %
In 1 30
Employ 8 %
ment
Young 1 31
(14-25) 9 %
55+ 1 16
0 %
Disable 4 7%
d
Total 6
1

The interviews and focus groups asked about: individuals’ use of public transport by
mode; the reasons for their use or lack of use of each mode; what they liked and
disliked about each mode; views on obtaining travel information; ticketing; distance
and time prepared to travel; and issues related to mental geographies, that is
people’s knowledge and perception of the area within which they move.

Cost of transport
The cost of transport was repeatedly mentioned during the interviews and the focus
groups. Many participants felt that public transport is too expensive for them and this
does sometimes influence how far and often they travel. Some participants
explained they would rather spend the money on other goods and services than
transport, and spend more time in their local area. When asked for the reason why
people do not travel more and further than they do already, cost was one of the three
main responses given (along with destination and ease of journey).

Those for whom travel was free travelled more that those who had to pay1 and
highlighted the freedom that this gave them to see friends or take advantage of
activities and services in London.

Geographical accessibility
Even within inner-London some interviewees felt their areas were not well served by
public transport. Bus use was more frequent as one participant explained it enabled
people to “travel to all nooks and corners”. Many of those interviewed did not use rail
because it does not go to where they want to go.

Public transport accessibility to potential jobs plays an important role in employment

opportunities. Indeed, it conditions the geographical limits of job search. One
participant explained that he could not apply for certain jobs as they were not easily
accessible by public transport.

However, there are many other factors at play which prevent people from accessing
employment. The most common barriers to employment expressed during this
research were lack of relevant skills and experience rather than transport.

Physical accessibility
The problem of physical accessibility was mainly brought up by participants who
were physically disabled or women regularly travelling with children and buggies.
However, in all the focus groups, at least one person mentioned that the tube and
railway stations in London do not provide access and help to disabled and mobility
impaired people.

The issue of being refused entry onto a bus, or the bus not stopping at all because
the person has a buggy or is a wheelchair user was reported as an all too regular
occurrence. School children also complained that buses do not stop for them,
particularly when large numbers are present at stops on their way home.

A disabled woman highlighted the fact that getting to public transport facilities was
difficult for her, because of the street environment. In her area, wheelie bins and
other street clutter make it extremely difficult for her to get to and from the bus stops.

Staffing
The lack of staff at bus stops and on station platforms as well as on buses and trains
was mentioned in all of the focus groups and many of the interviews. More staff is
seen to be the solution to improving information, safety and preventing anti-social
behaviour.

Having wardens at certain times (for example, to keep order on the bus when school
children are present) was mentioned several times. Whilst school children

1
At the time of the interviews free travel by bus was available to children at school as well as those over
60 or with a disability.
themselves also felt the need for additional staff on buses to keep order and to
reduce vandalism.

Journey experience
The main points of dissatisfaction in relation to public transport use in general, are to
do with the journey experience. Many do not travel frequently or long distances
because they do not enjoy the journey experience. Overcrowding, dirty buses and
tubes, lack of ventilation, claustrophobia, noisiness and the inconsiderate behaviour
of other passengers puts many people off travelling on public transport and in many
cases limits people’s willingness to travel further.

When the participants were asked what would be the main improvement that would
make them travel further, many of them answered comfort, pleasant routes, and
clean and safe transport facilities. Improvement of journey experience on the whole
could significantly influence travel patterns and horizons.

Safety and security

Safety was mainly an issue raised by women but it affected all age groups and
genders. Some women and school children do not travel on public transport at night,
they would rather take mini-cabs or taxis. Fear of crime and anti-social behaviour is
present not only in the streets, but also while waiting for the bus/tube/train and on
public transport itself. Young men raised the issue of mugging and other crime on
buses, while school children also raised the fear of being mugged on the way to and
from bus stops.

Nevertheless, fear of crime does not, on the whole stop people from travelling. A
female interviewee explained that “you can’t live your life in fear”. It seems to put
people off travelling at night, but generally does not have any relation to time and
distance travelled.

Many participants mentioned that surveillance on public transport had improved

significantly, especially with CCTV being installed at stations, and on platforms,
buses and trains. On the whole, CCTV increased the sense of safety in public
transport facilities.

Interchange
Going to places which require changing buses or trains is generally seen as an
inconvenience. It was observed that many people are prepared to travel longer
distances when the route is direct. A female participant said how she is happy to
travel for a long time if she can get a seat and “get stuck into a book”.

Interchanging on the underground or railway was not considered as troublesome as

on the bus, mostly because it is easier to find your way round the tube system, and
the changes are well signposted, with colour coding. One participant noted that bus
interchange at locations where there was a bus station was acceptable as it is
straightforward and well planned. But having to walk long distances in the tube
system, and from one bus stop to another, also deters people from changing.

Regularity and reliability

Irregular bus services, delays, congestion on the roads, inefficient bus lanes,
cancelled trains were all problems mentioned in the focus groups and interviews.
However, these were especially problematic for people who were in employment or
having to attend an important job interview/appointment. One of the reasons for
people using mini-cabs or taxis was time pressure: they could not rely on public
transport to get them to their destination on time.

Information
When individuals sought information on how to get somewhere or where to catch a
bus from; it was mainly done by asking people on the streets, friends and relatives.
On the whole, information regarding ticketing, routes and transport facilities was not
perceived as clear and straightforward. However, many found the bus spider maps
and frequency timetables easier to use than conventional bus maps and timetables.

Information on fares and discounts is according to a focus group participant "one of

the most confused things in London”. All of the participants found information on
fares and ticketing confusing, and many of them pay cash.

Oyster2 cards were seen as a way for Transport for London to make money, instead
of making passengers save money. Most of the participants did not understand the
pre-pay system, and were appalled by the fact you have to pay £3 to acquire an
Oyster card. Moreover, there were concerns over using Oyster cards as a means of
tracking people’s movements, using them as a form of ID. The majority of comments
regarding the Oyster system, with the exception of a few young people, were
negative.

Information on which bus to take, where to change, and where to get on and off
buses was perceived as not always being straightforward. Many participants said
that they found bus maps difficult to understand, especially when travelling in an
unfamiliar area. As one participant stated it is very difficult “for the novice” to get
around London on buses.

Many participants said they get travel information via word of mouth and
train/tube/bus stations. A small number used the internet but even the school
children who were highly computer literate did not use it as a way of accessing travel
information.

Family responsibilities
Family responsibilities is a factor limiting travel horizons particularly for women with
children. A child minder explained that it was a hassle to travel on public transport
with children, most significantly as she also had to look after a child in a wheelchair.

A woman mentioned that she preferred staying in her local area, as she wanted to
be close to her children who were at school, and could not work too far away as she
had to take them to school in the mornings and pick them up in the evenings.

Limited mental geographies

Many of the participants explained that they did not travel further than they already
do because they did not feel the need to do so.

However, many participants explained that they would be willing to make longer
journeys if they had a destination which was worthwhile (e.g. a well paid job). The

2
Smart card that can be used as “A pay as you go” or conventional season ticket on London buses and
underground.
majority of participants stay in their local area for most services. Staying in their local
area is more convenient, especially for work. As one participant highlighted: “life is
too short, why waste your time on public transport?”

The school children were given an exercise trading off pay with journey time. They
were given the choice of three identical jobs, one of which would be local to where
they worked, one in central London within around 45 minutes travel time and one in
north London around 60-90 minutes away. The wages paid increased the further
away the work was and by far more than the fare cost of the additional travel. The
initial view of all the children was to take the job nearest to home even though it paid
least. After further discussion some children were prepared to travel to the
intermediate location. In all cases the children’s ideal would be to obtain employment
locally with the younger children the least confident about travelling further out of
their area.

Conclusions

Inner London is not representative of the UK and much of the research on low travel
horizons is not always pertinent to the area. Very high population densities mean
that an extensive range of services and opportunities are still provided within
compact geographical areas. Even major public services such as hospitals can be
within walking distance, a situation that rarely applies elsewhere.

However, there remains the problem of high unemployment within inner-London

combined with labour shortages even of unskilled workers. In addition limited travel
horizons can also impact on an individual’s quality of life.

There are a wide range of factors that impinge on individuals’ travel horizons. These
relate both to accessing the transport system and then using that system to its
maximum potential.

Findings of the research highlight a number of broad factors that limit travel horizons
namely:
• Financial issues;
• Physical accessibility;
• Security;
• Information;
• Time poverty;
• Limited mental geography and aspirations;
• Staff attitudes; and
• Passenger attitudes.

Transport is expensive and an inability to afford transport severely reduces travel

horizons. Over recent years the cost differential between using rail or bus in London
has increased considerably pushing lower income groups towards bus use and
thereby reducing their travel horizons due to the shorter distances that can be
travelled within a given time budget. In addition moves towards cashless buses and
the increased differential between cash and Oyster fares has again had
consequences for those low-income groups who have not adopted Oyster. People
travel less than they otherwise would do and will avoid interchanging if that means
having to buy another ticket.

Despite huge improvements in physical access to the bus network (i.e. an entirely
low-floor bus fleet) there are still many physical constraints to travel. These include a
lack of seats at bus stops, buses not stopping near the kerb, inability to get buggies
on buses due to other passengers crowding on first and inability to access the bus
stop. Rail access both underground and overground is virtually impossible for many
mobility impaired persons due to the large number of stairs that need to be
negotiated.

Fear of crime is a major constraint to using public transport to its full potential as well
as walking and cycling. This includes anti-social behaviour and the presence of
graffiti and litter. This fear relates to access to and from public transport nodes and
waiting at bus stops and railway stations and on public transport services as well.
Fear of crime is particularly a factor discouraging the elderly, young people, ethnic
minorities and women from travelling especially to unknown areas. This fear of crime
leads people to use mini-cabs which, as they are more expensive, results in fewer
trips than otherwise might have been desired.

Despite the availability of an increasing range of technologies whereby people can

obtain information the lack of accessible and understandable information is still a
major inhibitor to travel. While people generally have a good understanding of their
local bus services they still rely on friends or transport staff to find information to get
to new locations. Even the school children who were interviewed who were all very
computer literate did not think of using the internet to obtain travel information and
Transport for London’s telephone inquiry service is not well known.

This lack of knowledge is a major inhibitor to people travelling off their local bus
network. The interviews and focus groups showed that individuals are content to
travel to any destination that is directly served by their local buses but will rarely
travel to destinations which may be closer but require an interchange. However, they
are readier to travel throughout the underground network due to the availability of a
relatively easy to understand tube map. A lack of understanding about fares and
ticketing was a frequently occurring theme in our research. Take-up of lower price
tickets, for example, Oyster, is inhibited by people’s lack of understanding of how it
works.

The need to cram an increasing number of activities in a limited time severely

restricts travel horizons for all income groups. For example, an increasing number of
children in a family reduces travel across all incomes. However, travel poverty
principally affects low-income groups who can not “buy” time from other people, (e.g.
through the use of cleaners, child minders and or who are dependent on public
transport). The need to pick up children at fixed times and high penalties for being
late for work severely inhibit travel horizons for these groups.

Many individuals do not travel far because they do not want to. All their needs are
met in their local community and as they do not travel they are unaware of
opportunities outside their local area. Hence they are in a “catch 22” situation of not
travelling and therefore do not know what opportunities they are missing and
therefore they do not travel.
Linked to this it is also the case that some individuals may have limited aspirations.
They may know there are better opportunities available elsewhere but still are not
prepared to travel to take them up.

The attitudes of staff can be a factor in reducing individuals’ willingness to travel.

This can include poor driving skills, an unwillingness/inability to manage passenger
behaviour, lack of understanding of mobility impaired passengers needs and
generally poor attitudes to passengers. Travel Watch report that around 1,000
complaints a week are made to TfL (Transport for London) about staff behaviour.

The behaviour of fellow passengers can also be an issue. Anti-social behaviour by

fellow passengers and or passengers’ refusal to move down the bus or take seats
upstairs can limit access to those with pushchairs. While an increasing unwillingness
to offer mobility impaired passengers a seat puts off those passengers from
travelling. In addition the whole ambiance or lack of it can be a major factor in
whether a person will use a particular route or service.

Summary

The inward-looking attitude of deprived communities who have lived most of their
lives in London is particularly strong. They are not willing to, or are apprehensive of,
travelling to unknown territory. Individuals who have grown up in these areas and
who have not travelled much out of their local area are usually more reticent to travel
far to work. They are the ones most affected by low travel horizons, as travelling
anywhere else in London is perceived as difficult and time consuming. They also
have a strong sense of community or identity with a specific area that discourages
them from travelling a long distance to work. This attitude is passed from generation
to generation and influences people in their search for jobs

Confidence for travelling on public transport and travelling out of the local area is
another linked issue. This is especially true for people who have been unemployed
for a long period of time, as their level of confidence is gradually reduced. Lack of
confidence can be exacerbated by language issues which can restrict the awareness
and willingness to use public transport.

References

Buck Karen Women's transport needs, Keynote speech by to the Women's

Transport Network, Conference. Delivered: 13 December 2005.
Cass Noel, Shove Elizabeth and Urry John, Social exclusion, mobility and access,
The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review, 2005.
Church, A. Frost M and Sullivan K, Transport and Social Exclusion, Transport Policy
7, 195-205, 2000.
Department for Transport, National Travel Survey 2004 (2005)
Department for Transport, Public Transport Needs of Minority Ethnic and Faith
Communities Guidance Pack, 2003.
Department for Transport, Social exclusion and the provision of public transport-
Main report, 2000.
Department for Transport, Women and Public Transport: the checklist, 2000.
FIA Foundation, Transport and Social Exclusion: A survey of the Group of Seven
nations 2004
London Skills Commission London’s Framework for Regional Employment and Skills
action, October 2002.
PTEG, Public Transport and Social Inclusion Good Practice Guide (2005)
Raje, F., Impacts of Road User Charging/Workplace Parking Levy on Social
Inclusion/Exclusion: Gender, Ethnicity, and Lifecycle, issues Oxford: Transport
studies Unit/DfT, 2003.
Schafer Andreas Regularities in Travel Demand: An International Perspective
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Journal of Transportation and Statistics
Volume 3 Number 3 2000
SEU, Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion,
2003, London.
Shove Elizabeth, Rushing around: coordination, mobility and inequality Draft paper
for the Mobile Network meeting, October 2002 Department of Sociology, Lancaster
University
Shuttleworth I, Mental Maps of young people and how to change them ESRC
URESG Seminar Belfast 2005
Transport for London, Social inclusion Action Plan, 2002.
TTR, Traveline & Transport Direct, Disabilities Customer Research July 2004
Turner Jeff & Grieco Margaret Gender and Time Poverty: The Neglected Social
Policy Implications of Gendered Time, Transport and Travel Time & Society, Vol. 9,
No. 1, 129-136 (2000)
Wixey Sarah, Jones Peter, Lucas Karen and Aldridge Mark, Measuring Accessibility
as Experienced by Different Socially Disadvantaged Groups, Working Paper 1, User
Needs Literature Review June 2005, Transport Studies Group, University of
Westminster.